|
| SEATBELTS SCHMEATBELTS - PART 2 |
| Friday, February 04, 2005 |
| The Snipet hates to post articles of this length, because I know you blog surfers are busy people. In 2003 I wrote this shortly after a huge response to the first article about seatbelts I wrote (see below). For those interested in the issue, it may be a worthwhile read. -Jack
--------------------------------------------
SOCIALIST LAW - A FOLLOW UP TO THE SEATBELT LAW SNIPET
KEY POINT
Socialism begins by placing the cost of irresponsibility or even responsibility on society in general, then, when the cost becomes too great, enacting laws limiting personal freedom to either justify or limit the expense. -Jack Mercer
TWO KINDS OF LAW
The United States Constitution provides for two types of law:
Tort law (private wrong AGAINST an individual) and
Criminal law (public wrongs AGAINST society).
Both of these kind of laws fit within the framework of both democracy and capitalism.
A THIRD LAW
The seat belt law brought about an entirely new, (well, its origins are not new and the attempts at similar legislation has been often promoted by socialists or communists), type of law. A law governing PERSONAL behavior that has essentially PERSONAL outcomes.
For example, if a law is enacted to outlaw me dropping my clothes on my bedroom floor because of the threat it poses to my own safety, it is an infringement upon my PERSONAL choice about something that affects ME. (my clutter floor is NOT a threat to other individuals or society-although some would argue to the contrary). The seatbelt law is the same kind of law.
These laws are ALWAYS justified on two bases:
1. The elimination of the personal right is GOOD for society if it minimizes the COST to society
Flawed fundamentally because it SHOULDN'T be a cost to society to begin with. This is a fundamental flaw of socialism. It has become so, because of the impetus of socialism in government.
An example of this is if I jump off a cliff and we make it society's (your) responsibility to pay for my funeral costs.
2. The government or legislative body is more qualified in determining what is better for us, than ourselves, thereby enacting laws that are tyranical.
Flawed by a simple review of history.
For example, the surgeon general has determined that smoking can be hazardous to your health. If your health suffers then you may become disabled and put on medicaid (which is the burden of society's and soon to be much MUCH BIGGER!) and therefore smoking should be made illegal because the government knows what is best for you.
Similar laws are the universal healthcare argument (a healthy nation is for the good of all, therefore everyone should bear the cost of keeping everyone healthy), sodomy laws (people's behavior in their own bedrooms), etc...
THE NATURAL PROGRESSION
In the extreme China has justified euthanasia as viable because of the cost old people, the mentally retarded and physically incapable place on society. Same goes for some European countries. (Cost to society-same argument people use about having to use a seatbelt!). This is another argument used in the abortion debate.
A SNIPET HISTORY LESSON
Because its important to see the early warning signs of socialism and socialistic law and it natural progression:
A social movement begins from a condition of latency where people become concerned about an issue making a social basis for the movement. There then comes a period of demonstration, or actions take place, in an isolated way until someone, possibly a public figure, puts forward the principle in a form which enables the movement to give itself a name and begin to formulate a program. At first social movements are generally unstructured and lack formal rules and programs, but in time these grow up in direct proportion as a social movement develops its program. Soon, within its ranks there develops various 'party-lines' (ie: democrat/republican, moderates/conservative, etc). A social movement has completed its mission when its defining principle has been accepted by ALL (whether assent of decent) and is written into the programs of all political parties and all aspects of social life, and at the same time, the principle has grown from being a "single issue" to constituting one aspect of the "world view".
A good example: 20 years ago the most TOLERANT would have laughed outright about the notion of our legislature considering gay marriages. Given the social impetus that the movement has had, it has integrated itself into our society to such a degree that it is now being considered in legislation.
SHREDDING THE CONSTITUTION
The final result in this system is that it begins making every decision based on the "good" of society, and therefore "individual" rights become non-existent. This is the reason many in government would say that the rights given in the constitution are not individual rights but societal or group rights.
IT FITS INTO THE MARX PLAYBOOK
Karl Marx wrote: "For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones. The class making a revolution appears from the very start, if only because it is opposed to a class, not as a class but as the representative of the whole of society; it appears as the whole mass of society confronting the one ruling class."
Karl lets the cat out of the bag by his statement by indicating the establishment of "social" goods by ruling classes are nothing but more than power grabs for complete control over the masses!
BEWARE "GOOD" THINGS
It can never be argued that a seat belt law isn't a good IDEA, but it can never be viewed as a good THING, because of the far reaching and deceptive precedence that it sets.
KEEP THIS SNIPET FOR FUTURE REFERENCE SO YOU CAN SAY "JACK SAID SO"
Some Snipet predictions given current trends:
1. Cigarettes will be outlawed or become controlled substances eventually, but only after they are taxed or regulated into extinction and no longer a lucrative source of revenue for the government.
2. Fat taxes, obesity rules or something related to penalizing fat people or the purveyors of goods that "cause" someone to be fat will imposed. It will begin with McDonalds and other fast food restaurants eventually having to settle a multibillion dollar lawsuit similar to the tobacco one. See a rise in the power of the FDA to limit carbs and calories in foods or the placement of warning labels on Little Debbie Cakes.
3. Cell phone usage, eating, or anything else while driving will become individualized rules. (P.S. This was written a year before the first cellphone use in autos law was enacted. The Snipet is right!) We already have negligent driving rules, but the move toward socialism will dictate more specialized/specific rules governing specific acts. These acts will have to be monitored in order to be effective, therefore systems will be enacted and enabled to be able to monitor them. (P.S. The "black box" in automobile proposition offered in California took place just recently. Don't expect to see this legislation die)
4. A myriad of individual rights will be trampled because they are not for the good of society such as gun ownership, etc.
SO AMERICA, BUCKLE UP AND KISS YOUR FREEDOM GOODBYE!
|
posted by Jack Mercer @ 2/04/2005 08:51:00 AM   |
|
| 3 Comments: |
-
Hi Right!
Good points all!
I think the issue I was wanting to point out was that when government involves itself in every facet of our lives because "it is for our own good" or for "the collective" good, then we begin to see an end to simple freedoms. It never comes in with a bang, so to speak, but through small incremental steps--one freedom after another, taken away until all of the sudden we realize we are no longer a free people, but one with a burgeoning government and oppressive tyranny. The United States was founded on the tenets of personal freedom--blood was shed for those ideals. We no longer wanted to live under the bondage of a monarch who required permission for everything a person did--a world where aristocrats and the privileged by birth ruled others. The rights afforded by our Constitution are to individuals, not groups, and the emphasis is limitation of government and its powers not expansion. I realize this is hard for people to grasp. I lived in Canada where I was told that many things were a privilege. South of your border many of those things are rights.
Keep in mind, that our founding fathers were anarchists--and they rose up and through bloody revolution threw off the yoke of thier oppressors. Thats what this nation is built on.
-
Right, you're wise beyond your years, man! An African American man ran for the Republican Party candidacy called Alan Keyes. He made a statement in a speech when I went to see him. He said in effect that 10 years we stood at the crossroads of tyranny--now we are far down that very road. Part of the purpose of the News Snipet is to fight that tyranny, Right. Sadly, when 9/11 took place, we allowed our government to further enslave us in the name of "security".
In regards to Canada, it has a rich and bloody past! :) They have not always been a pacifist nation as they pretend to be. One of my closest friends is a Canuck who is a chaplain in the United States Army. We are family, Dude!
Also, I just want to mention, that it is extremely refreshing to see some "rightness" coming out of Canada. According to our media and Canada's you would think that Canada has gone Swiss on everyone, but I know thats not the case.
Always look forward to your comment and point of view.
j
-
Jack, I had to laugh b/c your Google ads on the left side-bar offer 4 different vendors selling some variety of seat belts. So you'l be happy to know that even if you are forced to wear one, you'll have plenty of options to find one (if for some reason you vehicle lacked them...) ;-)
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
Hi Right!
Good points all!
I think the issue I was wanting to point out was that when government involves itself in every facet of our lives because "it is for our own good" or for "the collective" good, then we begin to see an end to simple freedoms. It never comes in with a bang, so to speak, but through small incremental steps--one freedom after another, taken away until all of the sudden we realize we are no longer a free people, but one with a burgeoning government and oppressive tyranny. The United States was founded on the tenets of personal freedom--blood was shed for those ideals. We no longer wanted to live under the bondage of a monarch who required permission for everything a person did--a world where aristocrats and the privileged by birth ruled others. The rights afforded by our Constitution are to individuals, not groups, and the emphasis is limitation of government and its powers not expansion. I realize this is hard for people to grasp. I lived in Canada where I was told that many things were a privilege. South of your border many of those things are rights.
Keep in mind, that our founding fathers were anarchists--and they rose up and through bloody revolution threw off the yoke of thier oppressors. Thats what this nation is built on.